Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1887-10-26
PRYoR'S PLEAS
In Behalf Of the Anarchists Before the
United state, Supreme Court
Action Deferred Till
Monday.
A Wild Cat Arizona Mfne-St. Louis
Loses the Worlds Champion.
ship to Detroit. i.

WASHINGTON, October 21.-At an early
hour this morning the conference room o
the Supreme Court al uncomfortable
crowded with lawyers ahd newspaper me1
who were waiting to hear tAe proceedings i,
the Chirago Anarchist case. Counsel 10,
the defense were in whispered consultation
At twenty minutes to IL Justice Harlan
entered, and az soon as the room became
quiet. without waiting for any motion O,
application from the prisoners counsel. h.
began delivering an opinion with slow, de
liberate eEunciation. After giving q briei
summary Of the application, he said: 'If
should allow q writ Of error it is quite Ger
tain that counsel would have to repeat
before the court tue argument which they
propose now TO make before me. On the
other hand, if I should refuse the writ, the
defendants would be at liberty to renew
their application before any other Justice
of the Supreme Court, and as
HUMAN LIFE AND LIBERTY
are involved that Justice mightfeel obliged,
Notwithstanding "A previous refusal of the
writ, to look into the case and determine
for himself whether the writ of error should
be allowed. If he also refused, the defend.
ants could take the papers to some other
member nf the court and so on until some
| Justice granted the writ. In this case it ie
manifest that d lays might occur that
would be very embarrassing in view OF the
short time intervening between this day
ard the date fixed for carrying into effect
ths judgment of the State court As the
case is one of q very serious character in
| whotovop ocnocf r. m q y ho rouo rdad I door,
it proper to make the order which l now
do that counsel present this application in
open session to the end that early and
final action may be had upon the question
whether that court has jurisdiction to re-
| view the judgment in this case. There is no
reason why it may not be presented to the
court at it's session to-day. Counsel may
state that the application is made to the
court pursuant to my direction"
IN THE SUPREME COURT.
The application to the United States
Supreme Court was made in open court
shortly after noon to-day by General
Pryor in behalf OF the condemned prisoners.
After r~eciting briefly the history Of the
case, Pryor said he would the attention
of the court to on'y two points which he
relied upon to show that the case at bar
presented Federal questions. and that such
questions empowered this court TO take
Jurisdiction and grant the writ OF error
prayed Tor. The first of these points re-
lated to the jury by which the prisoners
were tried. The legislature OF Illinois passed
in March, 1874, that is after the adoption
of the fourteenth amendment, Il law to
regulate and govern the empanelment OF
juries in state courts.
BY VIRTUE OF THAT Law
a jury for the trial of a criminal case might
had formed an opinion with regard to the
guilt or innocence OF persons accused, jurors
who were partial and even prejudiced men.
The law made it possible to put in the jury
box men who had formed all opinion as to
the prisoners guilt. which could not he re-
moved except by strong evidence. This he
believed had been done in the case under
consideration, and the petition asserted
that this statute and effect given it in the
courts below had
DEPRIVED THEM Of THEIR RIGHTS
and Vas about to deprive them of their
lives without ''due process of law, guaran.
teed by the Federal Constitution" In re-
ply to a query regarding the statute, Gen
Pryor read aloud that part OF the act OF
the Illinois legislature approved March II
1874. at appears of record" said Gen
PRYOR. "that this statute was called IN
/ question in the trial court as ~repugnant to
the provisions both OF the Federal Consti-
tuition and OF the Constitution OF the State
s,f Illinois, hut the court affirmed it's con
! stitutionality upon authority OF decisions
/ of the Illinois Supreme Court and the lat
ter afterwards
SUSTAINED THE JUDGMENT"
| Pryor then read an extract from the rec
| ord to show that among the talesmen ir
| the trial court there were men who admit
| ted they had read newspapers and had
| formed an opinion with regard to the case
| and we're therefore partial. After SOM
| %colioquy between Justice Miller and MIR
| Pryor, as to whether the pa ticu'ar lnro1
whose prejudices he described was on thu
Jury, Pryor said he WAS not, but that
Pryor said, it abundantly appeared IN the
| record hat at least two jurors. who
| actua " sat in the trial, were persons hav'
ing
PREPOssEssIONs N
OF the character described. Thus, by the
| action OF the lower conrt, he said. the Lii
uois statute had been made to deprive the
accused of the right OF trial by an impartia
iury, had abridged their privileges as clt'
zens OF the United States and was about tt
denriye them of life, etc, without due pro
cess of law. The Chief Justice remarked
that the only question for this court wal
whether the statute was constitutional
RI the court erred in it's administration o
the statute that was n question Tor tht
State courts. Pryor contended. that thu
action of the State court was the action o
the State.
PRYoR's SECOND POINT
was that the petitioners had been com
nelled in the trial court to be witnesses
aua;nst themselves. Some OF them wer'
on the stand, and in spite OF the protest o
their counsel, were compelled to submit Il
unrestrained cross-exaIninatlon. furtner
more, after their arrest, the police w1thou
anv nroccss OF law, broke open private
desks ard extracted from them letters ant
other eliminating evidence. aud ines
letters, gotten without due process 81 IA"
were used against them. When Objection
was raised, it was overruIed, anoeAcepI'o
taken, The use OF these papers was
COMPELLING A MAN
to testify against himself in violation o
the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution
In conclusion. Pryor sale it was not neces
sary to refer specifically to the FIT
Amendment, or Fourteenth Amendment
or any other particularly amendments a
violated by lie Illinois statute OF proceed
inqs in the State courts. He"would simpl
saw broadly that these were question
raised under the Federal Constitution. A
the conclusion of Pryor's speech the Chic
Justice held a
RR1EF WHISPERED CONSULTATION
with the several Associate Justices, an
then said: "Mr. Pryor, you may hav
nrinted at once, if possible, the parts G
Tho record which raise these questions, an
hand them to us this afternoon, or earl,
70 morrow morning, and on Monday W
will Indicate what is further necessary t.
be DONE"
i Arrest in the Railway Case.
PHILADELPHIA, October 21.-Frank Cred'
? ford. also known as Crawford. whose nam
has been connected with the latest clew l
2 the railway mystery AS a tramp weave
nd with whom the dead girl is SAID Z